[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals (2008-06 and 2009-04)

Hello WG,

As many of you know there are two policy proposals that describe how the
final /8 from IANA should be used. These are policy proposals 2008-06  
and
2009-04. There are a lot of differences between those two proposals,  
and it
is not really possible to have them both at the same time. That means  
that
this working group has to decide which way to go.

Because there are so many differences I want to focus the discussion  
on a
specific question at this point in time: "Do we (this working group)  
want
to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?"

The current proposals have the following IPv6 related requirements:
- Proposal 2009-04 requires the LIR to meet the requirements of the
   Preparation (1st request) or Transition (subsequent requests) phase  
of
   the transition plan specified in RFC 5211.
- Proposal 2008-06 does not define any IPv6 requirements for an LIR.

I can see the benefit (stimulate native IPv6 deployment) of such
requirements, but I can also see downsides (for example organisations
that need IPv4 space but can't implement IPv6 for some reason).

Do organisations that don't implement IPv6 cause a problem for the
community (and do we need policy to prevent that), or do they only cause
problems for themselves (and should we only limit the amount of IPv4  
space
they can get)?

When discussion possible requirements we must remember that the RIPE NCC
IP Resource Analysts (formerly known as Hostmasters) should be able to
check those requirements when evaluating a request.

We should also look at possible loopholes. I don't think we want an LIR
to give IPv6 access to a handful of customers just to be able to get
another big block of IPv4 space.

Once we have discussed this basic issue I'll steer the discussion back  
to
the other differences between the proposals. Please keep the discussion
on this topic for now.

Thank you,
Sander Steffann
APWG co-chair